Medical Errors and Malpractices

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Facts of the Case
The Trial Court Ruling
The Appellate Court Ruling
The impact of Ruling to the Health Care Administrators and Workers in the US
A Major Controversy in the US Health Care
Reference List

Introduction

Medical errors, malpractices and improper billings are common in the medical field. The patient who is subjected for medical malpractices can approach the court in support of some of the theories in relation to medical setting. This paper analyses a case of such legal proceedings in the first part, presenting the facts of the case that the trial court ruling, the appellate court ruling and how the ruling impacts health care administrators and workers in the US. The second part of the paper deals with a controversy in the US health care. It is a subject for debate that health care organization leaders should be held personally, responsible for fraudulent billing that occurs within their organizations.

The Facts of the Case

On September 12, 2001 a patient named Gary Vivone has under gone two major surgeries from the Broad Lawns medical center. The surgeries were the removal of gallbladder and the small cyst in the forehead. Both the procedures were carried out successfully on the same day. After the surgery, Vivone noticed the swelling of his forehead. Dr. Phan re-opened the wound and re-stitched it and placed a pressure bandage on Vivone’s fore head. He was then discharged from the hospital. On September, Vivone visited the hospital again and Dr.Phan removed the bandages and replaced them with a new pressure bandage. Vivone returned again on September 24 and he could know that he had tissue necrosis. He has a resulting permanent indentation in his forehead. Vivone filed suits against De. Phan, Dr. Mansour Hadali, Dr. Robert Banister, and Broadlawns on alleging medical malpractice. Later based on defendant superior, he dismissed all others and claimed Broadlawns was responsible under the followed legislative laws.

The Doctrine of Respondeat Superior
The borrowed servant Doctrine
Vicarious liability under the case of Wolbers

The above case is happened because of the mere negligence of the health care professionals. The common law of Respondeat superior is formed in England, which later is adapted in to the United States. “Under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship” (Law encyclopedia: Respondeat superior, 2010, para.4).

The Trial Court Ruling

Due to the medical malpractice committed by Dr. Phan, Vivone registered case against Broadloawns the hospital where Dr. Phan worked at the time of this medical error. Vivone claimed against the institution taking some of the theories in support of his side. One theory is Respondeat Superior which means the responsibility of an employer for the mistakes committed by his employee. “The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee” (Respondeat superior, 2005, para.1). The second theory in which his claim is grounded is the borrowed servant doctrine which means the liability of an employer for the actions done by his borrowed employee. “The common law principle that the employer of a borrowed employee, rather than the employee’s regular employer, is liable for the employee’s actions that occur while the employee is under the control of the temporary employer” (Borrowed servant doctrine (or borrowed servant role), 2010, para.1). The third theory on which his claim is based is the vicarious liability which proposes about the liability of a person for an injury occurred by the mistake of another person who has legal relationship with him. “The tort doctrine that imposes responsibility upon one person for the failure of another, with whom the person has a special relationship (such as Parent and Child, employer and employee, or owner of vehicle and driver), to exercise such care as a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances” (Vicarious liability, 2008, para.1)

On the basis of these theories, Vivone claimed against the hospital and submitted before the jury for the verdict after having an extensive discussion on the causation of the case. Finally, the jury found that the fault is with Dr. Phan. Since there is an employee and employer relationship in the case of Dr. Phan and Broadlawns, the verdict was against Broadlawns. Dr. Phan was an employee in the Broadlawns hospital. The jury judged against the institution $160000 as a compensation for the medical error.

The Appellate Court Ruling

After the verdict of trial court, Broadlawns approached the appellate court highlighting some of the claims. The institution is not liable for the mistakes of Dr. Phan and the court should not have allowed the testimony of two doctors who were the supervisors of Dr. Phan while he was working in the hospital. Failure of Vivone to prove the causal connection between his conduct and injury, the special verdict form was not proper were the four claims put forward by the Broadlawn Hospital in order to avoid the verdict of the trail court. Even though the hospital moved with these claims, the district court did not allow their post trial motions. But now the hospital is moving with some of the appeals. The appeal includes the correction of errors at law and the second appeal is that judgment is not withstanding the verdict proposing that it is to be taken into consideration where there is substantial evidence to back his claim.

The impact of Ruling to the Health Care Administrators and Workers in the US

The Ruling of the above mentioned case will impact the health care administrators and workers in many ways. “The way U.S. law now works in most places, organizations are strictly liable for crimes committed by employees who are doing their jobs” (More enforcement, less justice, 2010, para.3). The effective compliance program and the quality of health care is defendant in case of respondeant superior. The health care organization is responsible for the violation of any health care malpractices and it must provide the required penalty.

The health care administrators take the responsibility of the guilt’s committed by their workers. As an impact of this ruling, they will take the preventive measures to reduce the guilt’s committed by their employees. The institution will always maintain the quality of its health care by appointing well qualified health employees. The administrators will monitor the hiring health professionals. They will appoint the hired employees only after verifying the quality of their work and their motivation. The quality of the health care will be totally improved. The administrators will improve the effectiveness of the quality circle in order not to happen any further violations.

In one way, the organization will take the responsibility of the individual failure of its workers. But, it can take some actions against the worker based on the institutional laws and procedure. If the violation is severe the administrators can dismiss its employee. Therefore, the employee will also try to improve their quality of health care. The workers will always provide a better health care by updating the knowledge in their specialization.

The specialization of the employees will also increase. The health care institution is a developing industry. The employee will always try to update their knowledge in deep in a specialized area. Various health care services are provided with a multidisciplinary perspective; here the administrative of the institution will always try to monitor the multidisciplinary team effective in their quality. Sometime, a small negligence may result in the total effectiveness of the institution.

A Major Controversy in the US Health Care

There is a constant debate in the United States health care system in relation to the criminal prosecution for the medical error and for the fraudulent billing in the organization. The question is whether the health care organization leaders should be held personally for fraudulent billing that occurs within their organizations. Errors in billing is the biggest problem in the medical sector and some of the ways in which billing can be occurred are such as repeating the billing, an increase in the length of the stay in the hospital, improper calculation of the charges according to the type of room and the mistakes occurring in the key strokes. “Even the simplest medical procedure can cost tens of thousands of dollars. One error could add several thousand dollars to an already hefty bill” (Hospital billing error and fraud, n.d, para.2). As far as it is concerned, the health care organization leaders should be subjected to a criminal prosecution for improper billing of Medicare and Medicaid. Because the organization leader is the sole authority in the organization and most of the malpractices are occurred with their knowing. Even though it is a minute mistake in the billing, the money receiving out of this malpractice is enormous. The organization leader can stop such kind of malpractices from their organization if they have will. But no organization takes any step to stop such acts and moreover they encourage such malpractices. In order to eradicate this type of trends from the organizations, the organization leaders must be subject for criminal prosecution for improper billing.

Reference List

Borrowed servant doctrine (or borrowed servant role). (2010). Your Dictionary.Com. Web.

Hospital billing error and fraud. (n.d.). Fraud Guides. Web.

Law encyclopedia: Respondeat superior. (2010). Answers.Com. Web.

More enforcement, less justice. (2010). The FCPA Blog. Web.

Respondeat superior. (2005). The Free Dictionary. Web.

Vicarious liability. (2008). The Free Dictionary. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!